The right to care and support

Luke Davey has cerebral palsy and is registered blind, as a result he needs help with all aspects of daily living. He used to get that help through the Independant Living Fund which topped up his social services care package. ILF has now closed and the money passed to local authorities, but not ring fenced for those who previously had ILF. As a result Mr Davey's care package has been reduced from almost £1,700 per week to just £950 per week. He says this is both unreasonable and unlawful.

In a landmark case Mr Davey is taking Oxfordshire County Council to the Appeal Court, it will be the first time the 2014 Care Act has been used to challenge the actions of a local authority in this way. Thats the Act that was supposedly  meant to give those using care services more choice, control and rights. Mr Davey previously had this package for 23 years, and had a team of personal assistants supporting him. His needs have not decreased funding cuts have reduced his package. Cuts mean severely disabled people like Mr Davey will struggle to manage, if they do at all, and will be reduced to existing rather than living a life they choose.

In a twist disabled people were reportedly excluded from the court hearing, when staff allegedly  claimed there weren't enough staff to cope and refused to open the acessible entrance. Access was later allowed but judged poor by campaigners, whilst one risked injury.

The Government states that they want disabled people to be full participants in society, but their policies scream otherwise. If someone needs support to live, removing that support, or reducing it,  takes away their ability to choose how they live. Many disabled people have full lives, they are part of their community, taking part in events, aand may be contributing through volunteering, work.or study. They can only do this with support, support the law gives them a right to. The same support government cuts take away.

This case could have a fundamental effect on the lives and rights of disabled people. If successful it could force massive changes in practice and attitudes within support provision. It is right that disabled people would want to attend the case. To try to prevent this could be discrimination under the Equality Act 2010. That an organisation charged with upholding the law could even possibly breach it in this way is shameful. The right to defend rights through including access to justice is the most basic right  of all.

Story Source U R The Voice and Vox Political online

Nowhere to go

A disabled woman says housing won't help her because she is either too disabled or not disabled enough. On the face of it thats discrimination and if so is wrong. Housing law is complex though and the legal definition of homlessness which gives rise to a duty to house very specific.

Much is made in the article of her disability which would make finding a home more difficult. However being disabled doesn't make getting support automatic, she has to be unintentionally homeless.

This article poses more questions that it answers. Why are the LA, not meeting their duty, or not accepting they have one? If they are sending her to providers who can't assist her, then should they not liase to help her find a solution? Why are they not working with Social Services to support her more? If they have offered her money and that isn't enough are they helping her find somewhere where that is enough?

The LA may have acted correctly and done all it can, it may not. None of that changes the fact that there needs to be more accessible housing, and more support to locate it. Even if you can buy it can take years to find a suitable property. Even getting an agent to understand what suitable for adaption means is a challenge! If you have a disability, its never as easy as find a property and move in.